Lou skiing Washburn Ridge at about 16,500 feet, Denali, on his Waybacks. Perfect skis for these conditions. Click image for a mouth watering enlargement.

Louie and I had our pick of the K2 litter for our Denali planks. While having a big ski on the Big Mac can be nice for those few days you actually can enjoy going downhill with some beef on the hoof, you have to face the reality that most of Alaska Range ski mountaineering involves going up. Or, when you do ski downhill, the best (or at least safest) style is frequently a slow and intricate dance over and around crevasses, blue ice sheets, sastrugi, other people’s ropes, fixed ropes, rocks, frozen ski tracks, avalanche debris and who knows what else. You get the picture.

Hence, Louie and I figured our best choice for Denali skis would be something super light and somewhat short, but which could still handle variable conditions without requiring a lot of power for steering input. Fortunately I’d been playing around with the K2 Baker SL (superlight) for some time, and knew that ski was well suited for what our ski mountaineering style would be on the big one (doesn’t involve high speed power ). As most of you know, K2 recently revamped their whole line of backcountry oriented skis, renamed the line as “Backside.” They renamed the models, then began tweaking. The Baker SL became the Wayback, which this year will evolve to a nicely rockered board that skis great, is incredibly light, and as I now know is plenty durable.

Commodious tip rocker is now a marquee of every K2 ski made.

Construction of the Wayback is not much different than past iterations. The core is a lightweight sheaf of paulownia, aspen and bamboo, wrapped with just the right amount of fiberglass. Plenty of carbon fiber is used in the build as well, hence a ski this light (51.5 oz, 167 cm) — lack of mass that’s right up there in the ruling class of the ski weight population (see our ski weights).

Waybacks look nice too, with a bold but still restrained abstract pattern of greens and blacks. But just like ski town girlfriends (or boyfriends), who cares how they look as long as they can ski.

From what I understand, if you use now classic fat ski dimensions and play around a bit with construction and introduce some tip rocker, it is not that tough to build a ski that rides well. People even do it in their garages. But play in the realm of 88 mm waists and sub 60 ounce weights and you’re in a different game.

Thus, one has to admire the fine tuning that obviously went into the Wayback. First, the 20 meter sidecut combined with tip rocker makes this easy and fun in powder, as well as more forgiving in breakable than I expected my short 167s to be. Nontheless, due to the tip rocker they ski short, so for Colorado or Wasatch powder laps my 167s might be too stubby for my weight (155 lbs more or less). Even on Denali I found myself sometimes wanting a longer length such as the 174 cm version Louie used up there, if for no other reason than I could have relaxed a bit and saved my leg strength in places such as the ski hill above 14,200 feet. That said, I’d still bring the 167s for any sort of ski alpinism that involved steeper, more intricate terrain (for example, I used the little sticks to great effect on the Washburn Ridge). Also, let’s not forget a shorter lighter ski is a joy on the climb as they really are quite nimble and ‘way’ easy on the up.

If you’re a true ski alpinist, you’ll end up on steep icy descents once in a while. Such situations can be more dangerous than you sometimes think, as one slip can send you down so fast you have no chance of self arresting, Whippets or not. We were in that situation during our Mount Hood descent a few weeks ago. Wayback isn’t exactly designed for long pitches of 40 degree steep white ice, and rocker most certainly doesn’t help in those situations. But they got me down and did better than I expected. (Key with using a ski such as this on hard snow is to keep your edges tuned as you don’t have as much leeway in terms of what the ski can do with dull edges.)

Above being said, if you make a habit of skiing steep hard snow you would definitely want a plank that was better on hardpan. In the case of K2 Backside line, Coomback and Backlash are good examples of versatile skis that do soft snow as well as harder, with more power than a superlight plank such as Wayback.

So there you go, I’d recommend Wayback as a forgiving soft-snow and variable conditions plank that is super efficient for the uphill. They’ll continue to be my ski of choice for spring ski mountaineering, and if I had to leave for Denali tomorrow, I’d sharpen those edges and bring them again. Louie seconds that emotion about his 174s , only he says “I loved ’em.” So that’s a Wildsnow four thumbs up.

Comments

97 Responses to “K2 Wayback 2010/2011 – Ski Review”

Mark W
July 20th, 2010 10:12 pm

The rockered tip of the Wayback might be the one thing I would add to the Baker SL for better predictability in chopped crud, crust, mank, etc. Glad to hear they’re durable too. I have heard not-so-flattering comments about some of the other super light skis on the market today. I know it is a balancing act to get a light ski to also be reasonably durable.

Greg
July 22nd, 2010 3:43 pm

Great review Lou. Have you skied the new BD Ascents yet? Heard some good words from others and thinking about them this season. Now maybe K2…

Correct as always. The aspect was what I was thinking of. I am looking for something lighter than my el hombres. How would you compair them to the SL’s. Looking for that one quiver ski. I am 41 around 180 without gear.

I liked the K2’s a little better as compared to my Aspect testers, but once I get out on some production skis perhaps I’ll feel differently. Overall, the BD Efficient Series is most certainly a viable place to shop for the “human powered” ski of your dreams…

Surprised that you mention Coomback as a ski to handle white ice, and that makes me wonder about this review. I think the coomback is great for soft snow, but not confidence inspiring for wind pack or anything icy. I much prefer a ski like mustagh ata. Might be a weight issue – I am 87kg….?

Christian, all I’m saying is that in COMPARISON the Coomback is better, that’s based on Louie skiing a bunch on both skis. I absolutely did not indeed to imply that Coomback is a hardpack ski. Far from it. But any ski that’s used for true ski alpinism needs to have some edgehold, otherwise it’s not a quiver of one and can be dangerous. Sorry I was not more clear, I can see why you were wondering….

Tim
August 8th, 2010 6:05 pm

Glad to hear that the ski worked for you on Denali, Lou. One would assuredly want something light and easy to ski when altitude & fatigue are factored in.

I had a different experience on the Wayback at Mammoth this past winter while demoing skis at an outdoor retailer show. Granted everyone has different expectations of how a ski performs, but I tried this ski twice, and could not wait to get off of it either time.

Skiing the 174 (me 165 lbs) it didn’t float enough in powder, was unstable at any sort of speed in cut-up junk, and washed out on hard surfaces. It was too easy too turn, and lacked any sort of precision in maintaining the line of the turn.

I saw this ski as an industry gimmick: “let’s add some rocker to all our skis, because rocker is cool, and makes the ski turn easier in variable snow”. Unfortunately, I feel that this pushes the ski into a middle ground where it doesn’t do anything really well, and is only mediocre at all times.

Hi Tim, indeed, no ski is right for everyone, but to call it a gimmick is a bit extreme in my view. For a gimmick, they sure worked well during our three week demo in Alaska (grin). Pray tell, during the demo what skis in the Wayback weight class did you like?

Tim
August 10th, 2010 8:59 pm

There was a Scott carbon ski that was sweet, and a new Volkl rando ski perfomed very well.

I wanted to like this ski, as I have always enjoyed the K2 boards I’ve owned, and still own. It just felt insubstantial. The Sidestash in a 174 was a fun ride.

As far as “rocker” being a gimmick, I don’t think that this is at all true, (having been an early adopter of the Spatula). My experience is that it doesn’t make every ski better or more versatile. It seems to me that ski designers are still figuring out what to do with it, and how best to incorporate it into their creations.

And the Sidestash obviously worked for you on Denali!! I was just amazed at your review given my experience. Maybe I need to try a longer length. Go figure.

Please allow me to offer a belated congrats on your accomplishment! It must have been amazing to do this with your son!

Hi Tim, that’s great, really good to get specifics on skis people like.

Thanks for the congrats, it was indeed just an amazing trip. I’m still reeling from it and trying to write some retrospective, but it’s taking way too much time. I’ll get it done, however. Seems to help to do a weekend writing retreat by myself in our camper.

And, by the way, given my experience, I’m amazed at your review (grin).

In all seriousness, you’ve got to realize that I was reviewing the skis from the point of view of making slower mountaineering style turns and doing Colorado powder skiing that is fun on just about any plank, and comparing them to other skis in the same weight class. I thought I made at least part of that clear in my review. For more aggressive fast skiing I’m sure a more substantial ski would be better. That’s why K2 has different skis in the Backside lineup!

First, congrats to you, Louie and everyone on the Denali trip. The postings were great reading! The pix were droolworthy.

I’m a longtime lurker, first post. I am also a lifelong skier that has decided to get into the backcountry. 2 years ago, I trudged up Indy Pass to Mountain Boy in my frontside gear… and I was hooked. I’m an advanced skier, 200 lbs, 5’11” and at 57 years of age, I still like to ski hard… even though my body seems to appreciate the slower, easier days more.

I’ve been doing my research and have decided on Dynafit FT Z12’s, and a stiffer boot like a Zzeus/Titan/Skookum… whatever fits best. Just starting out, I don’t mind spending the dough on one great ski… but only one. So it’s the mythical quiver-of-one quandary. I’m down to the Wayback, the Mustagh Ata or maybe the Manaslu.

I would truly value your input and others on what ski… and what length.

I wouldn’t use the Wayback for quiver of one, nor the Manaslu. Possibly the Mustagh Ata or the Stoke, if you’re sticking with Dynafit… and… BD Kilowatt is still the old reliable, and K2 Coomback is way close to being a quiver of one…

Thanks for the input… I’ll check those others out too. And thanks for such a terrific and informative blog. I did most of my reading and researching here. You, your contributors and everyone else here makes for a great community!

Be well…

Griff
September 2nd, 2010 6:49 pm

Indeed, the Coombacks look sweet. But I’m concerned about those reports of bindings pulling out. Any official word from K2 on this? Any changes to the ski for 2011 to prevent this? It’s a good thing that K2 is standing behind them but I would prefer it not happen in the first place.

Griff, the point is they’ve sold thousands of those things. A few people report a binding pulling out, with no verification that it wasn’t caused by a mounting problem. Unless you are a jumbo sized skier I just wouldn’t worry about it. If you are jumbo, then yeah, you might want to look for skis that are jumbo strong. One thing to remember is that lighter weight skis such as Dynafit Manaslu and yeah Coomback may sometimes be a bit more sensitive to mounting error and skier size/style in terms of durability. We hate to see that change, as we want wide and light skis. My advice is that if you’re concerned about durability of the wide-light skis, then go for heavier and stronger skis, generally an alpine board mounted with AT bindings.

That’s what I figured you were getting at… point taken. A few reports does not indicate a trend.

I’m not jumbo but I could stand to lose a few lbs. 😉 That’s one reason I’m looking at getting into the BC. Exercise, beauty, peace, great snow, the new challenge… things the rest of you guys have known for years.

Thanks for the advice, Lou. The Coombacks are probably the ticket. I appreciate your help and your very informative blog. Maybe I’ll meet you around town one day.

Be well…

Derek
September 13th, 2010 6:48 am

Hi Lou,

Recently came across your blog while hunting out options for a new touring ski – great blog with a lot of useful info, and Denali looked awesome.

K2 Wayback sounds as though it’s about what I’m looking for but would appreciate a second opinion, and if there is anything else perhaps better suited.

I have spent last 5 years touring on 176 Rossi B3s – heavy, but boy are they fun when you can let them rip. However, legs are getting older (55 now) and kickturns, which I always found difficult with my short, unsupple legs are getting even harder. Touring is occasional in Scotland or the Alps so looking for something easy and allround as I really do seem to be able to find everything from rock hard blue ice to the most frightening breakable crust, and sometimes even some delightful powder or corn. Piste skiing over past few years has been a variety of makes (Rossi, Atomic, Head) all at or around 176 so I’m slightly woried about going down to 167, particularly given the rocker tip which, if I understand it correctly, makes the ski feel even shorter.

I’m around 160 pounds, 5’7″ and ski pack can be 25- 30 pounds on a multiday tour. I usually manage around 15-20 days a season mixed between piste and touring. Technique is good, although not race level.

Derek,
Wayback is pretty specialized to human powered vert, on the powder side of the equation. If you’re choosing between Wayback or Backup, sounds like Backup would be better (it used to be the Shuksan, if that’s any help.) In terms of length, you are about the same weight as me just shorter. My 167 Waybacks do feel short on occasion, because of the rocker. I think if they were my Colorado every day ski, I’d be using a 174, but for ski alpinism I still like the 167. Love the lack of weight and the way they carry on pack being so short.

Derek
September 13th, 2010 8:49 am

Thanks Lou for the quick feedback. In summary I think you’re saying Backup at 167 for touring – very slight heavier than the Wayback, but a hell of a lot lighter than B3s.

I’ve enjoyed the blog now I’ve found it so will let you know end of winter how I find them.

Best regards,

Milla
September 27th, 2010 12:33 pm

Thanks for a great review! Any idea how the waybacks would work with NTN telemark bindings?

Jon Liam
October 12th, 2010 10:07 pm

2011 Wayback now has “All-terrain rocker”. Does it take them closer to a quiver of one ski now?

Milla, I’m sure they’d work fine with NTN mounted. Jon, the rocker does make the ski somewhat more versitile, but a quiver-of-one ski would probably be a bit wider in my opinion. Everyone needs to remember that Wayback is built to be a lightweight ski for earning your turns. Backlash in my opinion is more the ski you’d pick for a quiver of one. We have a Backlash review coming, Ty?

Eric
October 16th, 2010 12:41 pm

As always, thanks for the review Lou, now with the Backlash review being posted nice to have the full perspective.

Between the two reviews I was surprised no mention of the Backup ski. My impression was, that was actually the most ideal one of the three for backcountry and ski mountaineering.

Any particular thoughts on the Backup and where it fits in?

Like you I’m a lighter rider, 155 lbs or less about six foot. Mostly doing backcountry and ski mountaineering, I ski more with finesse than hard charging. I am considering getting the Backlash in a 174 and Backup in 167, for my BC / Ski mountaineering quiver.

thanks again!

Adam
October 18th, 2010 10:25 am

Lou (or anyone else in the know):

Would you happen to know what, if anything, has changed from the 2009/2010 K2 Wayback (yellow) to this year’s 2010/2011 Wayback (green)? Need to know as I want to pick up a pair, and I can get last years for a couple hundred bucks cheaper….

I really liked the look and feel of the Amaruq when I handled them in a shop in St Anton last spring, but I could not convince the shop to mount them and let me take them out for a test ride. They were nice and light, but unfortunately the shop was planning to put the Marker Tour F10 on them and woudl not budge when I suggested Dynafits.

I have always liked Volkl alpine skis and these look and feel true to form…I can’t wait to give these a try someday.

Adam
October 18th, 2010 4:13 pm

Amaruq’s — I just managed to find a pair on ebay for $400. Given the weight and that I typically prefer Volkls to K2 (and have never skied BDs), I just bought em. Even last season’s Waybacks were going to cost me at least that….

Eric, I use the Backups and I think they’re the best all around backcountry ski I’ve used. Oddly they seem rather overlooked and don’t get much press, but if you hunt around and read user reviews here and there I think you’ll find similar comments. Ditto for the Shuksan which is the same model, but I’m not sure if anything changed when it became the Backup.

Personally I like it quite a bit better than the wayback, though I only had the chance to demo it once on groomers.

hope that helps

Mark W
October 19th, 2010 8:15 am

Bet the metal in the Backup seals the deal. I’ve got Bakers and Baker SL’s and the metal ones are a better downhill ride. Just don’t try to keep up with me on the up with the SL’s.

milt
November 11th, 2010 12:00 am

I’m considering the 2009/2010 Wayback or Backlash (last years closeout). Do you know how different they are than the current 2010/2011 models?

Thanks

Kurt
November 12th, 2010 6:02 pm

Hi, also a first-timer here. i’m interested to read Stephan, your comment on the Backups. i’m in germany, skiing here and france whenever i can. i had a well-worn pair of Dynastar 8000’s / 172’s that i loved for touring and variations. they were great for the learning curve in the chamonix valley and other challenges. last year i got a pair of Coomba’s in 178’s. i love them in the pow, but they’re quite a challenge in crust and ice for me.
i am also wondering if this is partly due to the dynafit TLT bindings. (i had daimler ‘Freerides’ on my 8000’s). (also, i’m another guy who had not one, but BOTH of my toe plates rip out of these boards!… they were mounted at one of the best shops in Chamonix also! the master then re-did them with some ?soldering metal or? poured in, and since they’ve been holding)
so to my questions:
– i’m wanting to replace the narrower boards, and right now first choice is the Backup’s in 174. (i’m 165lbs and 5’10”). i also don’t see many reviews about them, and would be grateful for any tips on reviews. i’ve talked to a few guides i know, and they say they love this ski and also like for steeps and icy conditions that it’s the one in the line-up without a rocker. I thought also for a while about the Wayback’s, but my sense is the Backup will be a better all-rounder, and is also a bit springier. i’d love to have a bit of bounce in this ski.
– also about bindings. after reading and talks, i’m thinking of unmounting the dynafits and replacing them with the new Marker Tour F10. Does anyone know about any reviews of this available?
– i’m also thinking about using the Backups for primarily touring, but want good edge control and precision for really enjoying the downhill: So, what’s the binding for me on these? i was kind of disappointed on the dynafits until now.
…thanks for any opinions and information.

Kurt, first, Dynafits are not for everyone. They are indeed a bit more demanding of the shop technician all the way to the end user. Thus, if you’re having doubts I’d recommend just go with Marker and be done with it.

As for the skis, I think you’d be super happy with the Backup.

Lou

DG
December 3rd, 2010 1:33 pm

First of all I love this blog. Secondly, comes my question. I’m looking for a lighter weight setup for 95% east coast general bc use (highly variable conditions) but something I don’t have to go back to the house to change skis to ride a chair or two with the wife and kids (not aggressive skiing). I was debating about waybacks and manaslus. I’ve never owned a ski without metal in it so I suspect either would be a big change. Thoughts or redirections? I guess if I could design my ideal ski it would be a 7lb or less Mantra with some early tip rise or slight rocker – I’ll keep dreaming. Keep up the good work

DG, first, what do you mean variable conditions? I have David Goodman’s book here and with the exception of page 46 every photo in it is of powder skiing. Makes me think I should move there.

But if you did want skis for someplace in the world that had hard snow now and then, you’d probably want something other than either Manaslu or Wayback. Louie says the Coomback is his ski to do it all. In the Dynafit line, that would probably be the 7 Summit, though the Stoke might be it as well but I’ve not skied them enough on hardpack to know for sure.

DG
December 4th, 2010 4:41 pm

Thanks for the comment, Lou. Goodman’s book is a good intro to east coast BC skiing and the backcountry is by far where I find the most consistent amounts of powder here. By variable I mean some wind scour, powder, crust, and crud all in the same day – pretty standard here. Maybe I’ll check out some coombacks. Nobody carries stokes or 7 summits out here and I have to at least touch and hold a ski before purchasing, for that’s worth.

neonorchid
December 14th, 2010 11:01 am

At this point i’m looking for one ski to do backcountry/resort skiing on the east coast.
My short list contains the Volkl Mauja, Volkl Amaruq, K2 Wayback and K2 Backlash.
I’m at the half century mark and weight 135lbs @ 5’7″ and am a advanced skier who’s been skiing it since my early teens. I avoid moguls on the front-side but like to carve fast medium to long turns and want something that’ll handle speed and hardpack and ice too.
Of the two volkl’s i was thinking a 170 would be about right, but am not so sure if i shouldn’t be on a 174 in the two K2 skis. I have a hard time thinking about being on a 167 but i fall just below the recommended size for the 174.
Your help with this decision process is appreciated.

I am considering replacing my Manaslus with something that will make tight turns in trees easier. I am torn between the Wayback and the Backlash. I ski tight trees and mostly sidecountry and day tours for turns, Monarch and Berthoud Passes, Butler Gulch and the backside of Pikes Peak are examples. I ski all terrain and like tight frequent turns. while I aim for powder I often end up skiing mixed surfaces, of course.

I am 6′, 190 lbs and my Manaslus feel just right for length at 178.

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on which ski and in what length. Thanks for the always interesting and informative blog!
Best,
Tim Whalen

David
January 12th, 2011 4:39 am

Hi Lou,

First of all: this blog is great, secondly I need your advice, because I´m looking for a new pair of backcountry skis. Most of the time I´m skiing in the European Alps, where I have to get on with variable conditions (from blue ice to powder). That´s why I´m searching for a ski that will handle all terrain and is still great in powder (´cause best days are powder days) and light enough to hike up (daytours, sometimes multiday-tours).

After reducing my short list, I am torn between two models: the K2 Backlash and the BD Aspect. How do they work in comparison?

FYI, I am 5’8″, 145 lbs, 28 years. As far as the backlash is concerned, due to the rocker-design I´m not sure about the right size for me (167 or 174 cm). My descents often end in tight treeruns…

So now I’m giving ski advice to Austrians? That’s just wrong. But I’ll go for it anyway (grin).

David, from your description I’d trend towards the Backlash, but if you like width keep considering Drift. Ski them both before you buy them. Thanks for visiting WildSnow.com!

Eurob
January 12th, 2011 5:38 am

David, just be aware that in many parts of Austria the winter days that warrant a 95 waisted ski are sometimes less than a dozen per season¹ (saying this after 2 seasons on BD Kilowatts here in Austria).

If you go for something in the 80mm range you might be able to save some weight. Unfortunately the K2 Wayback seems to be sold out. I would cautiously disagree with Lou and recommend the Aspect for it’s lighter weight, unless you are a freeride prone ski tourer. Maybe also check out Dynafit Mustagh Ata (Superlight) if you can get it below MSRP.

¹ except maybe if you can go out every day during and after storms rather than just on weekends.

David
January 13th, 2011 1:46 pm

Hi Lou & Eurob! 😀

Thanks for your comments. Of course, Austria is known as a skiing nation, but most of the dealers I tried to consult nor my buddies didn´t seem to have that much experience with rocker skis and I wanted some advice from someone, who really tested K2 rocker skis under difficult conditions.

I am still thinking about the right size. Concerning the “aspect” I would choose 166 cm, but I don´t know whether the k2 all terrain rocker camber does affect smoothness or not… ❓

best regards,
david

Bob
February 1st, 2011 4:13 pm

Lou,
I am a 50 year old ex-ski instructor and race coach and weight 155 lbs. in street clothes without a pack. I stand 5’9”. I am thinking about the Wayback for backcountry skiing in the northwest, but I am unsure of length. I would go for the 174 normally, but with the addition of the tip rocker should I go to the 181cm in this ski? Your son skis the 174 in this ski correct? Does he wish he had the 181?
Thanks

Bob, I’d go for the 174 unless you have some reason to need a longish ski.

Jonathan Whitlock
February 7th, 2011 5:20 am

Dear Lou,

am 6’4″, about 215lbs, ever-improving 4th season skiier, recently into backcountry ski touring while living in Norway. Am on a pair of Atomic RT 86s,183cm, with Dynafit Vertical ST bindings as a touring-specific rig. The skis bite the ice, make quick snappy turns, etc. etc., but the fun factor drops exponentially when the pow gets more than calf deep. In light of your report here on the 88mm Wayback, I believe it’s not so impossible to have a narrower-waisted ski with some tip-rocker that’s somewhat enjoyable in powder. It would indeed be a dream come true if I wasn’t forced to lean back HARD to keep my tips up & initiate turns in what should be the funnest possible skiing conditions.

I am daaaarn curious about how adding early rise to my Atomics might enhance powder performance, but the tricky part is I might like to try to impart some subtle rocker to the Atomics myself…. I tried looking at K2’s website, but to my awareness they didn’t publish the rise specs on any of their “all terrain” rockered skis. Do you know the rise/run specs for the rocker on the Wayback? Can you point me in the direction of a ski-blog with some tips on applying rocker in one’s own basement? Have done some of my own browsing, but it would be a fantastic perk to hear your input on such a venture before I proceed. If I proceed. (I also have a pair of Karhus which I could use as a backup if the experiment with the Atomics were to have an undesired outcome.)

Jonathan, while metal sandwich skis can perhaps be bent to effectively change the camber, doing so with fiberglass wrap construction boards such as K2 is not going to be very effective and could even weaken the ski. I have to admit I’m amused and fascinated by reports of people bending skis to add rocker, but there is no way I can recommend it.

As for taking the specs from one ski and trying to duplicated in another, that also sounds somewhat suspect to me. The way a ski performs is a sum total of a zillion factors. To think you can just bend the tip and tail to match the rocker of another brand/model, and have it turn out good, is a reach. Sure, I’ll be wrong about that in individual cases, but on the whole, I’ll stand by that statement.

The other thing I don’t understand about all this is that powder skiing is perhaps the second easiest form of skiing on the planet, second only to perfect corn snow. While I can understand how an optimized powder ski adds fun to the day (I enjoy that myself), to me it is the least essential criteria in a versatile backcountry ski. In other words, if my ski mountaineering skis hold on ice and help me in breakable crust manky snow such as deep unconsolidated slushy stuff, how they do in powder is not a huge concern so long as they’re not total dogs. (Caveat: I don’t generally run a quiver of one, and do use skis such as Manaslu when I know the snow is soft. And, if I did have to run a quiver of one, I’d be using something like a Coomback.)

One other thing. If you find your backcountry skis are difficult in powder, simply changing your mount position back a centimeter or a bit more can have a huge effect. I’d try that before I got to trying to bend the skis.

Jonathan Whitlock
February 7th, 2011 11:42 am

Hi Lou–

thanks for getting back so quick. point taken. the advice will likely have saved me plenty of time,money and heartache. Incidentally, I have a pair of Line Prophet 100’s for lift-assisted skiing mounted 1cm back from center, and rather adore their performance in powder (and everywhere else). Might consider taking the Dynafits back to -1cm on the touring skis and see if that provides some magic as well.

best,
Jonathan

Mark W
February 7th, 2011 12:27 pm

Perhaps in a few months the process of “adding” rocker to one’s planks will catch fire and become “common” much like locking the toes on tech bindings for the down, skiing the Grand, etc. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Christian
February 19th, 2011 11:14 pm

Derek,
I am wondering what you went with. I am in a very similar situation then you are. I use B3s (185) with Fritschi Freeride. They seem to be heavy (or/ and I get older). But they are so great going down, in particular in powder. Just a dream.
But I am looking for a lighter backcountry (touring and ski mountaineering) ski, and also want to put a Dynafit binding on it. I still think a 9x underfoot width would be good but I have not created a short list yet. I am also not sure if I should go shorter then 180 (I am 180, 80kg) I look at Dynafit skis, G3 and K2 I guess I am an expert skier though not a racer. Since I am so happy with the B3, if Rossi would have something that would be great. What did you end up with?
Thanks Christian

Adam
February 20th, 2011 2:17 pm

So I mounted the 177 Volkl Amaruqs with Dynafts and they ski quite nice. Definitely get tossed around a bit in crud (I skied on them in the resort a bit), but given its weight, it felt fairly stable. Fun ski. Great for touring. I’m 175 lbs, btw, so keep that in mind.

I cannot directly compare to the K2 Wayback having never skied it, but I’d definitely check it out as another option. FYI, I talked to a guy aat Proski Seattle, and he said that he carries the Amaruq as well as the Wayback, but recommends the Amaruq due to more torsional rigidity, having skied both.

Lenka K.
February 22nd, 2011 5:27 am

@Adam

Did you mount the Amaruqs as recommended by Völkl? I have them in 170cm (@135lbs) and found the binding position way too forward. It was great on hard&steep, OK in powder, although I felt I couldn’t ski quite as centered as I did on my old skinnier Shuksans, but a real disaster in compact powder or “slabpowder” — the tips would slip under the top, compact layer at every opportunity and I had to ski really WAY back to avoid this from happening.

Also, when I put the Amaruqs side by side with my Shuksans (167cm) I noticed the binding/boot center was at least 20-30mm forward. After some hesitation I decided to have the binding remounted 15mm back of the original position (due to the Dynafit screw pattern the choice was either 15 or 30mm) and am now really happy with how the Amaruq skis in powder & breakable/compact. Couldn’t test them on hard snow yet, but I imagine it shouldn’t be a problem if you take care to stay over the ski.

Incidentally, when you compare the Amaruqs to Völkl’s Nanuqs, the marked boot center on Amaruqs is approx. 15mm forward of that on the Nanuqs …

Just my 2c worth,

Lenka K.

Adam
February 23rd, 2011 2:47 pm

Hi Lenka,

Actually, no, I just used the stock mount point, and found that to be fine. That’s interesting about the Nanuq’s, though I doubt 1.5 cm will make that much of a difference.

Are the Nanuq’s also slightly twin-tipped? If not, the 1.5 cm could mean that the mount point is actually the same position when considering the length of the ski that is on the surface of the snow.

At any rate, I didn’t have any problem staying on top of powder, so to speak. The only problem I had was that they got kicked around in the crud substantially compared to my Karhu Team 100s (aka Line Prophet 100s), but those have an extra 12 mm of width underfoot and metal.

It’d be interesting to ski the Kendos (these skis with the metal) to see how they compare. Also, I’m willing to bet these skis have the exact same mount point as the Kendos…

Jake
March 4th, 2011 7:24 pm

So I just picked up some 174 Backups mounted with a Dyna Vertical ST. I skied some steep trees on an icy breakable crust and the Backups were just awful-diving and getting thrown all over the place. I was up there the day before in similar conditions with beefy freeride set up (Rossi S3s and Fritschis) without any issue…
My question: Was it the early rise rocker in the S3’s that made the difference? I was thinking I should exchange the Backups for some Waybacks as the latter have an early rise.
I wanted a light ski to scout some lines and do some “mountaineering” on the East Coast this spring. I got the Backup as I thought it would have more grip on ice and be a bit more damp for the crud.
Of course it would be naïve to expect the same ride from a six pound ski as a ten pound ski that’s 20mm wider, but did those Backups dive! I wonder if the Wayback would be more versatile as crust is a common occurrence here.

Jake, Wayback is even more specialized of a lightweight mountaineering ski. I think you should look at something else. Perhaps just put some STs on some S3s…

Christian
March 4th, 2011 8:00 pm

The issue with the S3 might be that it is just too heavy. If you look at a light ski, which is still good on ice, you might want to look at the Atomic Drifter. I haven’t skied them yet but from what I read they might be the right ski to go with. I am currently looking into this and am interested in some reports about it

Gavin
March 6th, 2011 8:20 am

Does anyone know if there is a difference between the 2010 & 2011 models of the K2 Waybacks?

Gavin
March 6th, 2011 8:58 am

Sorry, now see this was asked previously in this string – They added rocker in 2011.
Thanks

Wicks
March 8th, 2011 5:12 pm

Lou,

I am leaving soon to climb and ski Mt. Sanford in AK. In choosing my equipment I have closely followed your gear selection for your Denali trip and I have been very happy with all of my equipment.

Now I have to make a ski selection. Right now I have two setups comprising Dynafits on Volkl Mantras and K2 Sidestashes. I am considering taking the Mantras but am open to adding to my quiver. Actually, I am writing to justify adding to my quiver.

Wicks, sorry to not add to your quiver, but it seems like either of those skis would do the job if you’re happy with them… advantage of Wayback is super lightweight, which is mainly why I used it as I needed every trick in the book to get my sorry rear up that thing and back down (grin).

Jake
March 14th, 2011 12:49 pm

Just wanted to say, I took my Backups (that I was concerned about in an earlier post) out in conditions more appropriate for that ski and I liked them a lot. The snow was a spring mix with corn at the bottom to broiler plate at the top. The terrain included steep trees, not so steep trees, narrow stream beds and hiking trails. The Backups had great grip on the ice, were very snappy and turny but were surprisingly damp. A quiver ski for sure, but fairly light (similar to Wayback I believe) and should be great in the spring for mountaineering type stuff as well as tree skiing.

Randy
April 10th, 2011 10:55 pm

Wayback or Manaslu? I am a back country skier. Not much mountaineeringor known for skiing steep couliars. Just like getting out thereand earning the turns. I have been sking the Baker line from the beginning. It is time to replace my 181 SL’s w/ dynafit Vertical ST’s and have found I have a lot more options. I am 6’4″ and 190lbs unloaded. I like my current length ski which buying the Way Backs would not be a change in length and with the new rocker tip….oh boy! I have recently went fat with my inbounds ski. So it is tempting to go wider with my new bc set up. The recommended length for my size with the Manaslus are the 187’s. I am unsure I want to go longer. I would like to go to the 178’s to make quick tight turns and also make it easier on the kick turns. I have read a few heavier tall boys having sucess doing this. Have you found the small twin tip on the rear of the Manaslu causing any propblems making kick turns? I have done a lot of reading the last couple of days so you are probably going to repeat yourself anwsering my questions…can you give me a quick run down of your opinion of these two skis?

Daniel
August 18th, 2011 2:04 pm

hi all

i looking for a second rig that is more on the backcountry side. skiing is in the eruopean alps, so moderate amounts of fresh or more likely fairly variable snow (euphemism).

first rig is a 181 backlash. i like how they ski but feels like overkill and heavy for touring and kick turns are barely possible. i also want an AT rig since i could add under binding cant strips there (AT boots w/o cuff canting).

i have skins from a 174 baker and the “old” fritschi crampons from the first rig, so the idea is to get a pair of 174 waybacks with fritschi expexience binders. my stats are: 6’2 180lbs, athletic but not a very aggressive skier. short legs for my size.

boots are zzero4 px if that helps.

any comments on that? the other ski i am considering is the backup. should i go for the solid metal ski feel of the backup or the lightness and width (=float) of the wayback? how do they compare on the occasional (bad weather) relaxed groomer day?

Howie
September 7th, 2011 2:43 pm

+1 for the Backup.

I’ve been skiing them tele for two seasons (30+ days a year), primarily on the east coast. 60% in-bounds, 40% back country. I went a little short with a 167 for the tight trees and chutes we have in the eastern woods, although I wouldn’t mind a 174 for ripping groomers. They are definitely solid performers that go back and forth easily.

Great resort ski that holds much better on icy hardpack than its weight would indicate…predictable and damp. Great going up…light and fun ski that will get you down the “dust on crust” if that’s what you find. Point and shoot in the narrows, these boards can handle it.

Had them out in the Wasatch a few times, including a big dump at Snowbird. Very comfortable in soft and shallow stuff but were way too much work in the deep. Not a fun deep pow ski by any means.

I think they’re a perfect all rounder, especially if you have a pair of super-wides for the pow. This ski definitely gets overlooked and probably better suits a lot of guys I see out there on 90-100mm planks washing out of slide turns.

I will get another pair if/when these get too beat-up.

Nic
October 17th, 2011 2:42 pm

I just got myself a pair of 2010 factor boots (heavy but nothing lighter fit – and the AT blocks are another 60 CHF).
Probably I will get myself some 2010 wayback skies with that new Dynafit Radical ST binding. Any opinions if the bulky boot + superlight binding + rather light ski make sense (mainly day tours)?

The main point that interests me is another, which skins to use with the Wayback.
There are some by K2 that are made just for the Wayback.
Are those good, I imagine that fixing system by K2 is helpful.
How about those skins themselves?
Or do you prefer skins that have to be cut to fit.

Just the other day I realized how much time I spent on the internet to find out about best/lightest/nicest/most tasteful touring ski/boot/pole/chocolate bar – while the skin was of no concern to me. Probably the skin is a rather crucial part of the equipment.

As you see, I am rather new to ski touring – just getting my first set.

Nic, I don’t see any problem with that boot-ski-binding combo — sounds like a nice setup. I’d recommend the K2 skins for your k2 skis. Just remember to wax them with skin glop stopper every few trips, as they don’t have as much factory DWR treatment as some other brands. Lou

Chris
October 25th, 2011 10:40 am

K2 Wayback VS K2 Coomback?

Hi. I am about to buy my first set of randonne skis. But I need some tips/ advices about wich of these skis I sholud pick.
I live in the northern part of Norway where the conditions vary a lot, but we have lots of snow, and quite often powder.

By the way I have currently purchsed Dynafit Radical ST bindings, and Dalbello Virus lite boots.

In my mind the wider Coomback skis is best on the way down, and Wayback best on the way up. But I need som tips..

daniel
October 25th, 2011 11:27 am

where in norway? we are going to ski around tromso/lyngen in april. will bring waybacks with dynafit for that. found the 92mm backlashes to be on the verge of being to wide for hard snow climbs last season. so for an at ski, i went for waybacks in the end. but then again, these climbs were in alpine april frozen corn, so it’ ll come down to how often you ascend on hard snow, i guess.

Chris
October 25th, 2011 11:43 am

I live in Tromso, so most of my skiing will be in this area (Tromso/ Lyngen).
I suppose the wayback is a more of an allround ski, and maybe a better ski for the climb, and specialy in spring time. I´m just a bit worried that they will not perform as well as coomback in powder and loose snow on the way down?

daniel
October 26th, 2011 4:58 am

my waybacks feel quite solidly siff, mayeb even more so than the coombacks. the wb are more rockered, which coud to some extent make up for the lesser width, and mounting position is farther back. i was considering both but went for the wb simply because of he uphill. cannot see myself skinning hard snow and traverses on a 102mm ski.

msg
October 29th, 2011 5:12 pm

so if I understand, most people would recommend coombacks over waybacks for an all around touring ski, even if a fair bit of ice and windswept is encountered (If the weight is discounted)?

Daniel
November 21st, 2011 5:27 am

rode my 174 waybacks in variable conditions last friday. ok on the groomers, fairly nice in the offpiste given how tracked most areas were. had a minor fall at rather low speed in packed snow, left dynafit released, right one not. the right foot ski is cracked now, at about 1/4 length from top. didn’t feel any impact, force or whatsoever. no rocks as it happend on a glacier. hope k2 warrant this, otherwise it’ll be my first and last light weigth ski…

Daniel, sorry to hear that, I hope you get it worked out. And yes, not every piece of gear is right for every person… you have to work out your own kit, for your own style. Lou

Mike S
November 25th, 2011 3:02 pm

Chris from Tromso — Did you make your ski choice yet? I’ve got a pair of 181 Waybacks and 181 Antipistes, which are the 08/09 version of the Coombacks. They are both fine skis, but you are right — I sure have a lot more fun on the AP’s on a powder day. I’m just 155 lbs (70 kg) but with a touring pack it can be hard to keep the tips of the WB’s from diving into soft snow — I feel like I always need to be a bit on my heels with them. On the other hand, I love the WB’s for spring skiing — nice and quick edge to edge and the uphills are a breeze. Get ’em both… 🙂

Nic
November 26th, 2011 3:13 pm

So finally I got the AT sole blocks mounted to my factor boots and could get the Dynafit Radical ST Baltoro (92mm) mounted on my new Waybacks. Putting them on the living room carpet I inserted the blue 92mm Dynafit Crampons and, alas, they actually scratch at the side of the ski.
One is mostly ok, the other is somewhat worse, as the binding seems to be mounted not exactly in the middle (we are speaking of maybe a millimeter).
So it looks like the ski is wider than the 88mm waistline where the crampon is sitting and now I am wondering, if the ski will get damaged, with the crampon sliding along the sides every step.
Maybe it would have been better to get the 100mm crampon to begin with.
Did anyone else encounter that problem?

Daniel
November 27th, 2011 1:01 am

wayback mounting point is a bit (not way) back from where is was on the bakers. that may contribute to the issue. makes me wonder how my 92 mm crampons will work on my 90mm wayback replacemet skis to come…
off center bindung mounts are a drag, anyway. check if bindings are at least on axis.

Nic, if the crampon slides and doesn’t bind, you’re ok. It’s steel (the ski edge) against the aluminum. It’s not going to damage the ski. Many crampon setups rub against the edge of the ski. In fact, in many cases it’s better if when the crampon is twisted the ski keeps it from twisting excessively. I’d just keep an eye on things while you’re using, and make sure nothing is wearing excessively.

Nic
November 27th, 2011 3:07 pm

I had another look at the crampon.
For now I put some tape on the side of the ski, so (I can suggest myself that) the crampon is less likely to press on top of the edge of the ski.
I am considering to file maybe 1mm off at the inner side of the crampon (where it is fixed to the binding). Like that I would be able to move it that little bit over.
The binding is just not exactly mounted in the middle, which I probably never would have noticed without the crampons.

And then we need some snow, you should not complain about beautiful weather during the last 5 weeks (with the exception of some foggy days) – but hey, it is the end of November and there is _no_ snow at all anywhere in the alps.
And I am looking forward to seeing these skis in action.

Chris
November 28th, 2011 12:34 am

Mike S – I invested in the Waybacks (Big opening offer at a local sporting store) with Marker tour F12 bindings. But I also used the money I saved at the offer to purchase Dynafit Radical ST bindings for my Waybacks, so I have a light setup for the longer trips, specially during spring time.
My plan is also to get a wider pair to use with the spare Marker F12 in those nice powder days..

Out on the 174 cm Wayback today (from our Ultimate Quiver project). I’m in love. Probably should have had this length on Denali, like Louie did. Sometimes the young guys know what they’re talking about (grin). Lou

Ryan McShane
December 28th, 2011 8:55 pm

I’m trying to decide on a ski mountaineering / corn harvesting set up for the pacific northwest. I’ve been looking at the Voile Vector 180, Dynafit Mansula 178, BD Aspect 186 and the K2 Wayback 181. I’m planning to mount Dynafit speed radicals. My powder set up is DPS wailer pure 190s with Radical FT12s. I’m 6 feet and weight 190 pounds. I am leaning towards the Voile, due to its ability to deal with heavy Northwest snow. I also own a pair of K2 Coomback 181 with Fritchis as my resort set up and love them. Lou, any suggestions? BTW, awesome website.

Geoff
February 8th, 2012 10:14 am

Lou, I’m currently skiing on BD Havocs and am looking for something lightweight that will be a bit more forgiving in breakable crust and float a bit better in bottomless while still performing reasonably on hard snow. Do you think that the Waybacks would be a significant step up from the Havocs or would be very similar in performance?

Nic
February 18th, 2012 1:34 pm

OK, the people at the shop eventually managed to mount the Dynafit Radicals correctly in the end. The 92mm crampons also work nicely now. I have been out on the Waybacks for 8-9 days now, mainly freeriding/groomed/ski-schooling my son (the touring gear is very comfortable here, too) and today my first little tour.
Actually I am impressed how well the ski performs. Just once, when there was snow packed somewhat more densely I felt that a heavier ski might have ploughed through, when the wayback was just deflected. Also I expected it to be a rather bad on-piste ski but it is fun even there.

So I think I got a very good ski in the end for my purpose:
Fair enough on the groomed (good edges/nice turns)
Very good off piste (even with my freeriding friend)
Very good off piste (today with my skitouring friends)
Brilliant when carrying the ski back to the lift/car/bus/train because it is so light.

Keep in mind here, that this is my first pair of AT skis.
As a last remark. I compared my Wayback 181 to the Völkl Mantra 184 of my (freeriding) friend and was amazed to see that the overall length was the same.
I know that the rockered skis tend to be somewhat longer but hey, that are 3 cm/over 1″.

Tom
April 17th, 2012 8:07 pm

Midsole Mark
I just picked up a pair of Waybacks to replace my worn-out Baker Superlights. Seemed like the most similar ski available, and I loved touring on the superlights for the last 4 seasons. I was starting to swap my Dynafits from one pair to the other when I noticed the midsole mark on the Wayback is, well, way back. It’s 4cm more aft, to be precise. A significant amount, right? Both pairs are 181cm, the chord centers line right up, I don’t get it. Why would K2 change the midsole mark on what appear to be (other than the topsheet) nearly identical skis? And should I pay attention or just replicate the old mount on the superlights? Split the difference? I placed the same question to K2 but haven’t heard anything back.
If it’s any relevance, they’ll be used primarily in the north cascades for long tours and for occasional day trips in New England (I now live in Boston but still visit my old northwest haunts a few times a year).

See
April 17th, 2012 11:16 pm

Not knowing either of the skis in question, I would suspect that the boot is further back on the Waybacks because they have more tip rocker, which locates the forward contact point of the ski (on a firm surface) further aft.

See
April 18th, 2012 12:08 am

In other words, one’s weight doesn’t have to be as far forward in order to reverse camber the front of the ski in a turn if the tip of the ski is already reverse cambered.

Nikki
January 4th, 2013 12:13 pm

Any women skiing on the Waybacks? If so, how to size them? I am 5’6″ and 130 lbs. and debating between 160 & 167… thanks for your input!

Daniel
December 18th, 2013 1:38 pm

Can somebody tell me whether there is any actual difference between wayback and talkback skis? or is the same thing apart from topsheet design?

snieznyziomek
December 23rd, 2013 11:35 am

@Daniel
I read about your broken Wayback. Unfortunately I have similar problem: my Wayback broken during second day of usage. I noticed that at home, after returning from ski slope. I remeber that I fell down twice during skiing (at low speed, boots weren’t released from the bindings), but IMO skis sholud survive that.
Pictures: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x8dgob9x876n1ql/EO-XQ-FMiN

I bought skis at http://www.sport-conrad.com (about 1 month ago). I have written copule e-mails do them, but currently they don’t want to replace my skis to new one.
You wrote that K2 Germany replaced your skis. Did you contact to them directly? Or via shop where your ski had been bought?

I will be grateful if you send me any information about your case. Me: snieznyziomek at gmail

Your Comments

ree: Cool rig. I would expect there to be some condensation issues, esp. if you...

Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touringand is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OURCOPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.